Social identity complexity governs who counts as an in-group member

Evidence

But it may not only be direct contact, that is, actual face-to-face contact with out-group members that may prompt higher social identity complexity. Brewer (2008) argues that even extended contact may play a role in affecting social identity complexity. According to Brewer, the awareness of other in-group members’ contact with out-group members should inevitably enhance awareness of the nonoverlapping nature of social categories, including one’s own. Since extended contact involves the knowledge of fellow in-group members’ contact with a diverse group of others (with whom the individual may not be friends him or herself), the recognition that not all of one’s acquaintances and friendship circles overlap should enhance awareness of the complexity of own and others’ multiple group memberships. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 566

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: Connects to Allport’s contact hypothesis and mediation models in intergroup relations; also to network theory about weak ties and structural holes.

Related

• Knowing in-group peers befriend out-group others raises one’s perceived category complexity (similarity 0.91)
• Social identity complexity mediates how intergroup contact shapes out-group attitudes (similarity 0.88)
• People vary in how much their multiple group memberships overlap cognitively (similarity 0.87)
• Perceived threat to group distinctiveness reduces social identity complexity (similarity 0.87)
• Threats to distinctiveness drive simplified views of one’s multiple group memberships (similarity 0.85)
• Contact with cross-cutting others increases the cognitive complexity of one’s social identity. (similarity 0.85)
• High identity complexity requires recognizing one’s in-groups as distinct and non-overlapping (similarity 0.84)
• Contact with one out-group improves attitudes toward unrelated out-groups (similarity 0.84)
• In-group identity is defined only through contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.84)
• In-groups acquire definition only through comparison and contrast with out-groups (similarity 0.84)
• Multiple in-group categories can be cognitively represented in simplified or complex ways (similarity 0.83)
• Knowing that ingroup friends interact with outgroup members reduces prejudice without any direct contact. (similarity 0.83)
• Representing multiple group memberships as overlapping raises tolerance for diversity (similarity 0.83)
• Increasing cognitive complexity of one’s own identities reduces out-group prejudice without abandoning those identities (similarity 0.83)
• Intergroup contact may differentiate perceptions of one’s own group, not just outsiders. (similarity 0.82)